Change Programs are essential but often fail to deliver planned benefits. 70% of business process reengineering (BPR), 60% of process improvement (Lean 6 Sigma), and 70% of Business Transformation Initiatives are reported to have failed outright or not met initial expectations. The failures of programs are well documented. They include many organizational transformation initiatives such as Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) deployments as well as public policy initiatives such as the Affordable Health Care Act in the United States that experienced numerous unintended negative consequences. Whereas go/no-go analysis is well developed for “projects,” it is largely absent for “programs.” The distinction between projects and programs is that projects produce deliverables whereas programs produce outcomes. Producing outcomes typically requires a number of deliverables. Consequently, programs typically will consist of a number of coordinated projects that support achieving a singular goal that may span several (e.g. 4 to 6) years to achieve.
Program planning is a challenge because this passage of time tends to make programs more susceptible than projects to uncertainties in both their internal and external environments. These uncertainties are often beyond the control of the enterprise (exogenous factors). Furthermore, a program has a hard to define end-point. Therefore, the success of a program is difficult to evaluate because outcomes are not immediately observable and outcome metrics are hard to generate. Finally, because program planning lacks seamless transitions to Project Management controls, programs appear less governable and actionable. Consequently, thorough planning for change initiatives given numerous exogenous factors and the absence of outcome metrics as well as no familiar project management controls appears to be very difficult. This appearance of difficulty often results in major change programs that are launched based primarily on intuition and/or personal convictions. This invention (RAPP) will replace intuition and conviction with more careful logical scrutiny and analysis.
The discipline of Project Risk Management first identifies and then avoids, mitigates, transfers or accepts project risk, i.e. the risk to achieving deliverables as opposed to outcomes. Project Risk Management can be viewed as effort invested in exposing “known unknowns” and locally “unknown knowns” to scrutiny, in an effort to limit their impact. Program Planning lacks such a risk management methodology with the result that change programs are often launched without the benefit of exposing known unknowns.
Prior art in Program Risk Management is largely undeveloped. What little is available mimics risk identification practices for Project Risk Management which focus more on shorter term planning horizons with more emphasis on controllable (endogenous) than uncontrollable (exogenous) risk factors or influences. For example, the duration of change programs is too lengthy to allow for the accurate estimates of resource requirements.
Consideration of exogenous factors requires a significant element of progressive elicitation of expert opinions and judgments. Therefore, Program Risk Management requires both expert judgment and analytics. Additionally, the prior art focuses on already launched programs and/or does not directly support go/no-go decisions on launching new programs. The examples below illustrate these points and are divided into two groupings.
Proprietary Prior Art Approaches
Kotter 8-Step Process for Change
This popular practice for program management emphasizes qualitative behavioral change management guidelines such as “Establishing a Sense of Urgency,” “Developing a Change Vision,” “Communicating the Vision” and “Incorporating Changes into the Culture”. Such guidelines are useful only after programs are launched and provide no basis for making a go/no go decision to launch a specific program.
U.S. Pat. No. 8,527,316 B2
This patent application is focused on alignment of the program with the strategic intent of the firm. Its presumption is that programs fail because there is no such alignment. There is no focus on developing a basis for making go/no-go decisions for launching programs.
United States Patent Application US 2005/0197879 A1
This patent application deals primarily with active program management and recommends that operational metrics such as schedules, resources and budgets be carefully tracked. This is a clear extension of shorter project management planning horizons where this level of detail is available. Consequently, this invention has no utility for go/no-go decisions for launching programs where this level of detail is unavailable.
International Patent Application WO 2012107933 A1
This patent application applies to risk management for organizational entities as opposed to specific programs. Therefore it has no utility for go/no-go decisions for launching specific programs.
General Prior Art Planning Methods
Scenario Planning
Scenario planning focuses primarily on the exogenous factors or influences that might impact the mission, strategy and structure of an enterprise. Scenarios typically do not analyze specific change programs that would adapt the enterprise to a given scenario. Scenario driven strategy adjustments, however, may ultimately spawn consideration of a number of organizational change programs where RAPP would be useful. Therefore Scenario Planning has no immediate utility for supporting go/no-go decisions for launching specific programs. A description of scenario planning is provided by George Wright & George Cairns in Scenario Thinking, Practical Approaches to the Future, 2011, ISBN 978-0-230-27156-2, and by Mats Lindgren & Hans Bandhold in Scenario Planning, the link between future and strategy, 2003, ISBN-13:978-0-230-57919-4, and the content of which are incorporated herein by reference. incorporated herein by reference.
Project Management
Project Management techniques depend on the concept of Work Breakdown Structures (WBS) to which resource allocations can be made and scheduled. This level of detail is only known in the relatively short term often long after programs are initiated and therefore project management techniques alone are not appropriate to make program go/no-go decisions. A description of project management techniques is provided in Project Management Body of Knowledge, Fifth Edition, Project Management Institute, 2013, ISBN-978-1-935589-67-9, and is incorporated herein by reference.
Project Risk Management
Project Risk management is employed in support of Project Management and therefore also utilizes the concept of WBS to which resource allocations can be made and scheduled. This level of detail is only known in the relatively short term often long after programs are initiated and therefore project risk management techniques alone are not appropriate to make program go/no-go decisions. Project risk management techniques are described in Integrated Cost-Schedule Risk Analysis, David Hulett, 2011, ISBN 978-0-566-09166-7; Fundamentals of Risk Management, Paul Hopkin. 2010, ISBN-13: 978-0-7494-5942-0; and Practice Standard for Project Risk Management, Project Management Institute, 2009. ISBN: 978-1-933890-38-8, the context of which are incorporated herein by reference.
Financial Modeling & Decision Analysis
Financial modeling is a general technique that is not restricted to any specific usage application. Therefore, it alone does not have the inherent analytic specificity required to support making program go/no-go decisions. A description of such financial modeling may be found in Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis, Cliff T. Ragsdale, 2008, ISBN 0-324-65664-5, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference.
Dynamic Simulation Modeling
Dynamic Simulation Modeling is a general technique that is not restricted to any specific usage application. Therefore, it alone does not have the inherent analytic specificity required to support making program go/no-go decisions. Dynamic simulation modeling is described, for example, by Borshchev in The Big Book of Simulation, 2013, ISBN 13: 978-0-9895731-7-7, the content of which are incorporated herein by reference.
Backcasting
“Backcasting is a systematic method for creating a picture of the future and how to get there.” It is prior art that is particularly powerful for the progressive elicitation from domain experts of obstacles, achievements and actions required to reach program goals. RAPP utilizes backcasting as its qualitative planning element and integrates backcasting with the general prior art planning methods discussed above. Backcasting by itself lacks the quantitative elements needed to make go/no-go decisions for launching programs. Backcasting is described by Hirschhorn in Backcasting, A systematic Method for Creating a Picture of the Future and How to Get There, OD PRACTITIONER Vol. 39 No. 4, 2007, the contents of which are incorporated by reference.
Conclusions on Weaknesses of Current Program Planning Methods
As exemplified by the prior art cited above, current methods lack the capacity to balance qualitative judgment with quantitative metrics to make decisions to launch or continue change programs. Current methods also lack the capacity to seamlessly transition to more granular and detailed project management methods needed to actualize programs. Current methods further lack the capacity to consider exogenous factors and influences that come into play when considering change programs that may take several (e.g. 4 to 6) years to develop. The invention addresses these and other problems in the prior art.